Their decisions on product release schedules depend on profits, not on other factors.

I would have to disagree on that. While profit plays a BIG part, there are other factors. I really don't think Apple would release something that definitely wasn't ready for prime time solely because the release schedule was due. The product released may not have everything but the kitchen sink, but it will definitely work the way it is advertised (and work well). Other companies <cough> Google <cough> have been known to do that though.

If Windows 8 takes off, you really think Apple would make Bing it's default search and maps provider? That's like free advertising for your competitor's products and services. That and I doubt MS would ever pay Apple (like Google does) to be the default service provider on iOS. And all that is aside from the user experience qualms Apple has, namely that Bing sucks and is particularly atrocious outside the US. If they default to Bing outside the US, just watch the dissatisfaction as users start complaining about how the search engine and maps suck on the iPhone. Google maps is now good enough for Bentley and Audi to use in their cars. Is Bing anywhere close?

As for Amazon not being Android, that remains to be seen. We'll see if it's a fork like what Baidu is doing or its just an Amazon skin without Google apps. If it's the latter, it'll very much remain Android and I strongly suspect that Google will quickly make all their apps available in the Amazon App Store. And don't forget, with Android, you can install apps from outside your native app store if you choose to.

Google pays Apple to be the default search engine on iOS devices.
If MSFT provides better terms, why would Apple switch to Bing?

But I really hope that Apple started its own search engine as revenge against Google.

My guess is that Amazon tablet will be easy to root and run default Android software. Still: Isn't that tablet 7 inch?
16:9 + 7inch = can't do real work. Great as a media player, but not much more.

very reductionist. However it's not always the way. If Apple worked out that they could use their brand to make more money selling Windows, they wouldn't.

If it meant the difference between staying in business and going out of business, they might...

Live to fight another day.

In fact, there is a mini-precedent where Steve Jobs, shortly after return to Apple, said MS won the war then welcomed MS as an investor and supplier of MS Office for the Mac. Those actions were needed, IMO.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

It was a liberating feeling, when S. Jobs stated "We have to let go of this Apple, Microsoft argument. Microsoft won a long time ago.".
That freed up Apple to concentrate on the one and only, most important thing. Do the best possible product possible.

I don't know that Jobs ever had to say that because I don't know that he ever bought into 'the war' at all. But if he did, he likely wasn't specifically talking about one company. He was probably more like "we are not doing things based on what everyone else is doing, no matter who it is"

But you are right that Apple focuses on making what they feel is the best possible product and, based on sales, its working. People haven't run away from the Mac because it doesn't have blu-ray, people haven't run away from the iPhone etc because it doesn't have flash. In fact right now as I am writing this, AI is reporting Apple's stock at $400 and some change. And this is pre the iPhone announcement. I'd say that's pretty good

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetz

Just look at the leaps from iPhone to iPhone 3G to iPhone 3GS. None of them compare to the leap to iPhone 4 from the 3GS, imho. And I strongly suspect that has something to do with the iPhone facing a more competitive market.

Existence/availability of needed tech of course had nothing to do with it.

According to press reports Amazon will have two slates. One 7" and the other a more traditional 9.something.

As for Apple creating their own search engine, that would be time wasted IMO. They make more money by concentrating their resources on things they're good at.

I definitely agree with your second sentence. Why in the world would Apple jump into the search market?! Apple sticks to it's strengths which is software/hardware integration. Even with the currently contentious relationship between Apple and Google, I don't see Apple jumping into that arena. Even if Apple planned to cut Google off at the knees (and I don't think it has any plans to do that), it certainly wouldn't be a straightforward tit-for-tat scenario. It would come up with something entirely different than what we know as search as opposed to a me too product.

I would have to disagree on that. While profit plays a BIG part, there are other factors. I really don't think Apple would release something that definitely wasn't ready for prime time solely because the release schedule was due.

I think we agree. They would not release something that definitely wasn't ready for primetime solely because the release schedule was due.

Why? Because they realize that doing so is not the best path to maximizing total profits. It is, instead, a path to disaster and reduced profits.

Apple had better have a release for next Spring. Otherwise they will be sending the wrong message to developers. You don't stay on top by simply being on top. Given Apple's history I don't see that happening. They are a hardware company and they have to constantly be bettering their products otherwise they are loosing money because no one is going to buy what they already own. In any case, I doubt this is true based on Apple's historical record.

#4 while Apple has great battery life for their tablet the e-readers can get 30 days on a single charge. Apple can't compete there. Again we go back to these devices apply to very different markets.

How often have you flattened an iPad's battery before you can recharge it? The fact that a Kindle or a nook mono can go for a month between charges isn't meaningful if it's trivial to charge it once a week.

Apple had better have a release for next Spring. Otherwise they will be sending the wrong message to developers. You don't stay on top by simply being on top. Given Apple's history I don't see that happening. They are a hardware company and they have to constantly be bettering their products otherwise they are loosing money because no one is going to buy what they already own. In any case, I doubt this is true based on Apple's historical record.

I agree. Apple will have an iPad 3 ready for release next spring. Apple is pretty serious about updating their hardware to incorporate the next and best, and in the case of the iPad that will probably be higher resolution screen and cameras, new processor, etc. I think the gist of the writer of this article is that Apple needn't push up the release of the iPad 3 into this year's holiday shopping season since the competition's offerings have failed to make a dent in the marketplace. Had the Zoom, Playbook, or other tabs been hits, Apple probably could have done a mid-cycle upgrade, but since the others are falling by the roadside, there's no need to rush an already set schedule.

Now having said that, I'm sure the iPhone 5 delay was mainly influenced by 2 things: Verizon getting the iPhone 4 in February, and the iPod losing some of it's luster in the market. Granted, any other MP3 player seller would LOVE to have the sales the iPod still enjoy 10 years after introduction, the iPod has become a component in the other Apple devices, thus canabalizing sales. Moving the iPhone release to what was once the iPod release makes perfect sense, especially if the iPhone 5 is all the rumors suggest. Have one large product refresh in the spring, and another in the fall. Let the upgrades to the iMac, Macbook Air, and MBP fill in the rest of the calendar.

Reflecting more on it, the more silly the premise of the article appears. Apple is rarely in a rush to introduce a new iDevice more than once a year, and that model has held up pretty well. Apple has had a roughly annual cycle for iDevices for about seven years now, a given iDevice type gets an update about a year after that model's previous update. Going by that pattern, we're not due for an iPad 3 until next spring anyway.